497 P.3d 160
Idaho2021Background
- Idaho enacted SB 1110 (2021) amending I.C. § 34-1805(2) to require initiative/referendum petitions to obtain signatures equal to 6% of registered voters in each of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts (previously: 6% statewide including 18 districts). SB 1110 took effect immediately under an emergency clause.
- In 2020 the Legislature amended I.C. § 34-1813(2)(a) to bar initiatives from taking effect earlier than July 1 of the year following voter approval, effectively giving the Legislature time to repeal voter-passed laws before they take effect.
- Reclaim Idaho and the Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution sought a writ of prohibition and declaratory relief challenging both statutes; they were actively attempting to qualify initiatives/referendum for the 2022 ballot. Michael Gilmore separately sought a writ of mandamus challenging SB 1110.
- The Secretary of State and the Idaho Legislature defended the statutes as valid exercises of the Legislature’s authority under Article III, § 1 to prescribe the “conditions and manner” for initiative/referendum. Defendants also raised standing and justiciability arguments.
- The Idaho Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction, denied Gilmore standing, found Reclaim and the Committee had standing and imminent injury, and addressed the merits given the urgent timeline created by SB 1110.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 34-1805(2) (35-district signature requirement) violates Article III, § 1 | Reclaim/Committee: 35-district rule excessively burdens people’s fundamental initiative/referendum right and effectively nullifies it for many proponents | SOS/Legislature: statute is a legitimate exercise of power to set conditions/manner; it ensures statewide inclusivity and prevents localized ballot-cluttering | Court: right is fundamental; strict scrutiny applies; 35-district requirement fails (no compelling interest; not narrowly tailored); statute enjoined and prior 18-district version restored |
| Whether I.C. § 34-1813(2)(a) (delay effective date until July 1 following approval) infringes people’s independent initiative power | Reclaim/Committee: provision unlawfully gives Legislature time to repeal initiatives before they take effect, intruding on people’s power to set effective dates | SOS: effective date is a procedural matter within Legislature’s conditions/manner authority and routinely used to manage state law timing | Court: delay provision infringes people’s independent power to enact laws and is unconstitutional; enforcement barred |
| Standing / justiciability to invoke original jurisdiction | Reclaim/Committee: they have concrete, imminent injury because they are actively qualifying petitions and the statutes materially increase their burden; urgent need for relief | SOS/Legislature: challenges are speculative; may present political questions; district court is proper forum; petitions lack standing | Court: Reclaim/Committee have standing and urgent, justiciable claims warranting original jurisdiction; Gilmore lacks standing (claims too speculative) |
| Remedy and scope (what version remains in force; fees) | Reclaim/Committee: strike the 35-district rule and the July 1 restriction; seek fees under private-attorney-general doctrine | SOS/Legislature: defend statutes; oppose fees | Court: enjoined 35-district and July 1 provisions; reinstated prior 18-district statute (not ruled on its constitutionality); awarded Reclaim/Committee attorney fees under private-attorney-general doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa, 342 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2003) (struck down county-based geographic signature requirement as violating equal protection)
- Van Valkenburgh v. Citizens for Term Limits, 15 P.3d 1129 (Idaho 2000) (standing and treatment of rights as fundamental under Idaho law)
- Dredge Mining Control-Yes!, Inc. v. Cenarrusa, 445 P.2d 655 (Idaho 1968) (upheld legislative procedures for initiatives as "reasonable and workable")
- Luker v. Curtis, 136 P.2d 978 (Idaho 1943) (initiative-enacted laws sit on equal footing with legislative acts)
- Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Denney, 387 P.3d 761 (Idaho 2015) (relaxed standing/original jurisdiction for urgent constitutional claims)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (U.S. 2019) (political-question doctrine and limits on federal courts addressing partisan gerrymandering)
- Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council, 28 P.3d 1006 (Idaho 2001) (strict scrutiny standard for laws affecting fundamental rights)